9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that adequate disclosures were duly made in the ER-1 returns field with the department. It cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the assessee. Further, on perusal of the entire Show Cause Notice, except the mere allegation of suppression to invoke extended period of limitation, there are no specific charge against the assessee for willful suppression of any information from the Department. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.75919 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO.76194/2019 - Dated:- 29-7-2019 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Rajeev Agarwal, C.A. for the Appellant Shri T. Mondal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty amount with interest and penalty were accordingly confirmed. The appellant could not succeed in the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar. 3. Sri Rajeev Agarwal, C.A., appeared for the appellant and Sri T. Mondal, Departmental Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. The Ld. CA submitted that their case is strong on merits as well as on limitation. He stated that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is merely based on the Larger Bench decision of CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. wherein the Hon ble Tribunal while denying suo moto adjustment of excess duty, had not taken into consideration the decision by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court as reported in [2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any objection for suo motu adjustment made by the assessee, the department could have disputed the same within the normal period of time limit of one year, which is the stipulated time period for mandatory scrutiny of returns by the Range Officer. Since the fact regarding adjustment of excess duty was always in the knowledge of the department, there cannot be any case of suppression and therefore extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 5. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding made by the authorities below and stated that the impugned order is legal and correct inasmuch as the issue of suo motu adjustment of duty has been decided by the Larger Bench in BDH Industries case and the issue is no longer res-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
